Diagnostic Toolkit for Reducing Regulatory Barriers to Solar, Wind and Pumped Hydro Storage in the European Union

5. Innovative commercial-scale solutions

Abstract

This chapter explores innovative commercial-scale solutions that expand the range of viable sites for renewable energy deployment while addressing land-use constraints and enhancing system integration. It focuses on three emerging technologies: agrivoltaics, which combines agricultural use with solar energy generation; floating solar, which utilises artificial water surfaces to host PV systems; and infrastructure-integrated PV (IIPV), which embeds solar generation within transport corridors and other built infrastructure. These approaches not only optimise land-use and mitigate environmental impact but also offer opportunities to improve public acceptance, reduce grid congestion, and accelerate deployment in regions with limited space or high land competition.

5.1. Agrivoltaics PV solar

5.1.1. Introduction

For the purpose of this report, the terms Agrivoltaics, Agri-PV or Agri-solar (and this report will treat these terms interchangeably) are used when land is used for the co-location of renewable energy generation with agricultural activities – thus combining solar electricity generation with agricultural production in a single place (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). As highlighted by our analysis, there remains substantial untapped solar potential across the EU, with a significant part in designated agricultural land.

Given that it combines both electricity generation and agricultural production, Agrivoltaics can contribute to enhancing both energy and food security as well as climate change mitigation. Agrivoltaics installations could help capture the solar potential while maintaining agricultural productivity, and the economic case for Agrivoltaics includes considerations that it can help address both energy security and food production objectives, as well as climate mitigation. Further, Agrivoltaics, leads to more efficient land-use and may lead to increases in the economic productivity of agricultural land relative to a PV system or monoculture or grassland alone (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023[2]). At the same time, traditional ground-mounted solar projects typically have a higher capacity density per hectare compared to Agrivoltaics (Czyżak, 2024[3]).

This innovative land-use model presents multiple economic advantages for farmers. First, it creates an additional stable revenue stream through electricity generation, diversifying farm income beyond traditional agricultural yields. Second, the overhead solar installations can provide valuable crop protection from extreme weather events, which are becoming more frequent due to climate change. Third, the shade provided by solar panels can reduce water consumption for certain crops, potentially lowering operational costs.

However, realizing these benefits requires careful consideration of regulatory frameworks and policy priorities. Permitting processes and land-use regulations may have not been revised considering the growing economic interest for conventional ground-mounted PV and contemplating dual-use applications like Agrivoltaics, potentially creating unnecessary barriers to deployment. A systematic review of these regulatory structures, particularly at regional and local levels where most agricultural land-use decisions are made, will be crucial for enabling wider adoption of this technology.

5.1.2. Potential of agrivoltaics in Europe

The potential for renewable energy production from Agrivoltaics is very significant and is mostly untapped. According to the European Commission, Agrivoltaics could produce 730 GW of electricity by 2030 and even more in 2050 (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). Indeed, covering 10% of Utilized Agricultural Area with agrivoltaics (UAA) could represent between 3.2 TW and 14.2 TW of installed capacity. Even at a lower scale, it still is an important opportunity for the renewable energy transition in Europe, as using only 1% of UAA would lead to 944 GW of installed capacity which would on its own nearly meet the EU's 2030 objectives as provided by the European Commission (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]).

After applying all exclusions and constraint factors based on strict environmental and sustainability criteria, prioritizing food production and conservation, the maximum suitable land for a sustainable deployment of PV solar ground-mounted systems is calculated to amount to 92 800 km2, which is equal to 2.2 % of the EU’s total land area. Agricultural areas of low productivity combined with high risk of abandonment and severe erosion make up 80 % of this suitable land, which amounts to 4 % of the EU’s agricultural land. (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]).1

The untapped potential for Agrivoltaics is very significant in a number of countries in Europe. In accordance with certain sources, France has the largest untapped Agrisolar potential, ahead of Spain (100 GW) and Italy (75 GW) (Observatoire du Système électrique, 2024[5]). As further examples, recent analysis also indicates that Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia have the potential to install up to 180 GW of Agrivoltaics, nearly tripling Central Europe’s annual renewable electricity output from 73 TWh to 191 TWh. Allocating just 9% of this capacity could fully meet the electricity demands of the agricultural and food processing sectors in the region, highlighting the significant role of Agrivoltaics in enhancing energy self-sufficiency (Czyżak, 2024[3]) for the sector.

5.1.3. Benefits

Agrivoltaics can increase land-use efficiency by allowing the same land to be used for both energy and food production as well as reduce land-use conflicts between agriculture and energy generation. By allowing the same plot of land to serve two purposes – generating renewable energy and producing food, Agrivoltaics can contribute to increasing land productivity. It can also help mitigate land-use competition between food and energy, an aspect that may be particularly beneficial in regions where land is scarce or highly valued for agricultural purposes. Therefore, Agrivoltaics can contribute to address the land-use tension between solar development and agriculture by merging the two and may help regions meet renewable energy targets without sacrificing arable land.

Agrivoltaics can offer a win-win situation for farming yields, in particular for certain types of crops. Agrivoltaics systems can increase crop yields by providing shade, reducing heat stress, and protecting crops from extreme weather. In some cases, using Agrivoltaics could increase crop yields by 16% for crops like berries and fruits (Czyżak, 2024[3]) (Europe, 2023[6]).2 Indeed a meta-analysis on crop-shade tolerance shows that leafy vegetables and berries may benefit the most from such systems, whilst other reduced light might also negatively impact yields of other crops (Vezzoni, 2025[7]) (Asa’a et al., 2024[8]) (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]).3 Additionally, the shading effect of PV panels can reduce evapotranspiration, leading to water savings and improved water productivity, which is crucial for sustainable agriculture in water-scarce regions (Asa’a et al., 2024[8]).4

Agrivoltaics can diversify farmers' income streams by enabling them to generate and sell solar energy, thus providing a stable supplementary income. Farmers can increase revenue by selling electricity to the grid or reducing on-farm energy costs (Asa’a et al., 2024[8]). The electricity generation from Agrivoltaics may provide a balance to the seasonal nature of agricultural activities. Further, in circumstances where there are unexpected yield losses, these may be compensated by the revenues from energy production. This can enhance the financial resilience of rural communities and contribute to local economic growth (Asa’a et al., 2024[8]). Therefore, by integrating solar panels with agricultural activities, Agrivoltaics may help to preserve valuable arable land, increasing profitability for farmers.

Agrivoltaics installations may also offer power system benefits given their different generation profile. Grid congestion is currently a significant challenge. This context makes generation timing and profile particularly relevant for new solar power installations. The configuration of Agrivoltaics systems, particularly their more frequent east-west orientation may provide advantages for grid integration as it offers extended generation hours across the day, reduced peak production at midday, enhanced efficiency during morning and evening periods, meaning they generate in a timing better aligned with demand patterns (Czyżak, 2024[3]). Agrivoltaics can also promote distributed generation, where energy is produced closer to where it is consumed (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]), which can help to reduce the stress on long-distance transmission lines.

5.1.4. Overview of agrivoltaics systems

Agrivoltaics systems can take various forms, dictated by local climate conditions, crop type, farming techniques, and energy goals. While this is not a comprehensive technical classification, the major categories below describe some of the main possibilities. This background sets the stage for understanding the importance of regulatory clarity and grid accessibility.

Different types of Agrivoltaics are available and can be deployed, depending on factors such as the type of farming activity. Agrivoltaics can be installed whether for crop cultivation or for raising livestock (Soto-Gómez, 2024[10]) as the technology used can be adapted to the farming activity (canopies, PV greenhouses, ground mounted solar farms (Macknick et al., 2022[11]) (Gaëtan Masson; (Becquerel Institute); Melodie de l’Epine (Becquerel Institute France); Izumi Kaizuka (RTS Corporation), 2024[12])). The technical solutions are also very different and can be broadly categorized as open and closed systems (see Figure 5.1 below). Open systems refer mainly to ground-level or overhead panels (elevated at least 2m above ground over the agricultural land), or interspace. Closed systems PV mainly refer to greenhouse integrated PV.

Figure 5.1. Types of Agrivoltaics solutions

Source: (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9])

Characteristics differ quite significantly between agrivoltaics systems. Open overhead systems feature raised solar panels, leaving space beneath for crops and farm machinery. Although simpler to install, these fixed-tilt systems must often be approved by land-use authorities. Vertical-panel setups function as fences or windbreaks, sometimes enabling orchard or vineyard operations below; however, local rules can differ as to whether these are fences, agricultural or solar facilities. Lastly, greenhouse-integrated designs utilize semi-transparent or wavelength-selective PV panels in roofs, though they often need specialised permits due to building and electrical requirements.

These technologies and technical solutions have different characteristics. They need to be taken into account in order to design the regulatory framework in a way that can allow for their market entry and deployment. In many instances, ground-mounted Agrivoltaics can have an impact regarding the building regulations, as, in the absence of dedicated exemptions, they are considered as regulated physical structures (Vollprecht and Trommsdorff, 2023[13]). The regulatory stance therefore may greatly impact their feasibility.

A Concise Overview of Non-Regulatory Barriers

There are multiple barriers to the deployment of Agrivoltaics, broadly sorted into economic, skills and social barriers, as well as regulatory barriers arising from existing legal frameworks and rules. This report will focus on the regulatory barriers in Section 5.1.5. Nonetheless it is important to recognise the importance of the non-regulatory barriers, which will be covered (more briefly) in this Section.

Economic and financial challenges arise from the fact that Agrivoltaics installations require higher investment costs compared to traditional PV systems. Initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) is anticipated to be at least 20% higher than for standard ground mounted systems with the same generation capacity (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). This may derive from the need for specialised panel designs, more robust supporting structures, and other engineering challenges (Vezzoni, 2025[7]) (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2023[14]).5 This means that economic feasibility may largely depend on the crops with which the Agrivoltaics is to be matched. Additionally, given the novelty of the Agrivoltaics business models, the unfamiliarity of these to banks and investors may result in higher interest rates or stringent credit requirements, which may reduce incentives for farmers or small developers.

More research and its dissemination is needed to help identify those crops that can benefit or benefit the most from Agrivoltaics systems and under which conditions. More research on Agrivoltaics systems, including data on crop yields, soil health, and best-practice configurations across various climates and plant species is needed. Further there is then need for the dissemination of technical expertise among farmers and installers, who may need training in system integration, panel maintenance, and partial-shade agronomic practices. For this, identifying and making publicly available local case studies, may increase understanding and demonstrate viability, help optimise project design, or build stakeholder confidence in Agrivoltaics.

Social acceptance is an important factor to consider as communities may otherwise oppose Agrivoltaics projects. Concerned about potential changes to traditional or scenic landscapes, residents and community groups may oppose the visual impact of solar installations on agricultural land. This may for example justify the existence of buffer zones (areas between the solar panel installation and a town, for example) to minimise disturbance and community opposition of a new Agrivoltaics project (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]), as well as highlight the importance of timely public stakeholder consultations.

5.1.5. Regulatory barriers

Regulatory and administrative rules can constitute significant barriers to deployment and whilst they can be highly specific to national or local jurisdictions, several common threads emerge. Such barriers can comprise legal mandates, zoning classifications, permitting processes, and rules that govern how land can be used and how renewable energy projects are approved. More specifically, unduly restrictive zoning, lengthy permitting, complex land-use classifications, unduly complex and lengthy environmental impact assessments can constitute some of the most significant obstacles facing Agrivoltaics.

Lack of legal framework

(To undertake a self-assessment on legal framework, see questionnaire in section 5.1.6)

Legal uncertainty can raise the perception of risk and therefore can raise the cost of capital. Legal certainty can affect investment and economic activity and decisions and is therefore a relevant contributor to conditions that are conducive to investment.6 The absence of a clear definition leads to uncertainty for farmers, investors, and developers, as the criteria for what qualifies as Agrivoltaics can vary significantly. This is particularly relevant for Agrivoltaics as farmland is subject to a number of different and sometimes conflicting interests, including farm production, environment protection, soil protection, farmers, and producers’ rights, amongst others.

There is currently no EU legal framework in place setting out harmonisation of rules across the European Union. While the EU provides goals and directives on renewable energy (RePower EU, RED III, etc.) and sustainable land-use (LULUCF regulation) in general, the responsibility is left for the Member States to adopt or adapt their legal frameworks, considering their agricultural practices, energy policies, and land-use planning systems. At this stage, whilst several Member States are working on their own definitions and standards, there is a lack of harmonisation in approaches, and this may lead to inconsistent interpretations across Member States.

The absence of a clear and comprehensive legal definition or standard at the EU level is a significant obstacle to the increase of Agrivoltaics deployment (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]).7 This results mainly from the limits to land-use and land-use classification for agricultural land, but also to the links between land-use designations and the possibility of attribution of EU agricultural subsidies, which are often important for the agricultural sector. An example of a country where there is a legal definition enshrined in law is Germany, where Agrivoltaics is recognised under the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG).

A concern with Agrivoltaics is that installing PV solar on agricultural land can, in some cases, alter its legal classification. This may be because the presence of solar arrays may be interpreted as transforming farmland into a non-agricultural use, and therefore for conventional PV installations on agricultural land, a zoning plan change is often required (see below Section Spatial planning ). It may also have tax implications, and the land might be subject to different regulations applicable to commercial or industrial areas. In several Member States, such reclassification following the implementation of an Agrivoltaics system has introduced legal uncertainties for farmers, potentially affecting land-use rights and regulatory compliance (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]).

Additionally, this change may lead to exclusion of eligibility from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), posing financial risks for both farmers and investors. While CAP legislation does allow certain non-agricultural activities on agricultural land, there are various interpretations and implementation approaches across Member States, which can impact farmers' access to CAP direct payments (SolarPower Europe, 2024[15]). In some countries, Agrivoltaics is not addressed in CAP Strategic Plans, resulting in no dedicated financial support or guidelines, leading to developer uncertainty (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). These uncertainties create a perception of legal insecurity, potentially discouraging investment and adoption of Agrivoltaics projects. One good example of where dual land-use is specifically recognised is the Dutch CAP plan that specifically requires that PV modules do not interfere with agricultural activity (Europe, 2023[6]).

These implications on land-use, subsidy attribution and taxes may be compounded by risks of misclassifying conventional ground-mounted PV as Agrivoltaics. Unclear definitions may also lead conventional ground-mounted PV be defined as Agrivoltaics, when they really are not complying with the dual-use character that underlies Agrivoltaics classifications. Misclassifications may imply inconsistent loss of financial support under the CAP, planning law issues, and legal uncertainty which may deter investors and increase project costs (Europe, 2023[6]).

Legal frameworks that are conducive to Agrivoltaics deployment may also explicitly specify what cannot be considered Agrivoltaics, for instance a “non-agrivoltaic” project might be one which leads to the agricultural production no longer being the primary activity on the agricultural plot, as in France and Germany (see Box 5.1). (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]) (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]).8

There is some evidence that establishing a clear legal framework can lead to increase in deployment. There are reports that show that the recent legislative changes in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have led to a significant increase of new Agrivoltaics projects (Czyżak, 2024[3]).

Box 5.1. Land Coverage Limits in Agrivoltaics

The examples of France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands

National regulations often set limits on PV installation coverage to maintain agricultural land-use and eligibility for subsidies. These rules typically define maximum coverage, minimum yield requirements, and acceptable land loss percentages to ensure that Agrivoltaics systems complement rather than replace farming activities.

1. France: In 2023, France introduced Law n° 2023-175, establishing a legal definition of Agrivoltaics that requires PV solar systems to actively contribute to agricultural production. The law ensures that Agrivoltaics installations maintain agricultural land classification, allowing farms to remain eligible for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies as long as agricultural activity remains the primary function. Unlike Germany, France does not impose strict quantitative limits on land coverage or crop yield. Instead, each project is assessed individually based on three key criteria of (i) Contribution to agricultural production, (ii) Impact on agricultural yields and (iii) Effect on farm revenues.

2. Germany: Germany has also introduced the DIN SPEC 91434 technical standard, which sets clear requirements for distinguishing Agrivoltaics systems from conventional ground-mounted PV. Land loss after PV installation must not exceed 10% of the total project area for Category I Agrivoltaics systems and 15% for Category II with the reference yield determined based on the three-year average of yields from the same agricultural land or, if unavailable, by using comparable data from relevant publications.

3. Italy: Italy has implemented specific guidelines to ensure that Agrivoltaics projects maintain agricultural land-use while supporting renewable energy production. A Maximum Land Area Occupation Ratio (LAOR) limits PV installations to 40% of the total agricultural area, ensuring that farming remains the primary land-use. Additionally, agricultural activities must continue alongside energy generation, reinforcing the dual-use principle of Agrivoltaics. To maintain energy efficiency, projects must achieve at least 60% of the energy output of a conventional PV system.

4. The Netherlands: Agricultural land remains eligible for subsidies if solar panels do not interfere with farming operations. Regulations allow a maximum of 100 distributed solar panels per hectare, with a total covered area not exceeding 100m². Additionally, clusters of panels larger than 10m² are not considered eligible, ensuring that PV installations do not significantly impact agricultural productivity.

Source: (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]) (SolarPower Europe, 2024[15]), (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]) and (Vezzoni, 2025[7])

Spatial planning

(To undertake a self-assessment on spatial planning, see questionnaire in section 5.1.6, as well as Spatial Planning and Permitting chapte).

Spatial planning is designed to balance diverse land-use needs, including agriculture, conservation, and infrastructure development, including now renewable energy. While increasing the share of renewables is a key policy goal at EU level, planning frameworks must also consider environmental protection, landscape values, and community interests.

A number of issues affecting deployment of Agrivoltaics may arise from spatial planning rules. Namely, the complexity of multi-level governance for zoning rules, including lack of the possibility of land-use designations and rigid and outdated spatial plans are some of the main ones.

A significant hurdle for Agrivoltaics may lie in land-use zoning laws, especially if they do not allow for dual land-use. As mentioned above, regular PV installations on agricultural land often require a zoning plan change, leading to a loss of agricultural classification. This is especially the case when there is no explicit setting out of dual land-use (agriculture plus energy generation). Often land-use zoning laws classify farmland exclusively for agricultural use9. Without a clear dual-use classification (in suitable areas), Agrivoltaics developments may face legal uncertainty, requiring developers to prove that their projects will not compromise farming activities.

Effective spatial planning is important for the deployment of Agrivoltaics, and this may require a more dynamic approach of updating zoning designations. Introduction of Agrivoltaics systems often requires zoning plan change, especially if there are no existing structures on site (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). Careful site selection and prioritisation of areas where Agrivoltaics may be used10, the integration into planning documents and guidelines, as well as clear and consistent definitions and integrated spatial planning can play an important role, and require updating, in particular for those countries that have infrequent updates to zoning designations.

Specific allocations for Agrivoltaics can also make the permitting easier downstream, requiring less justifications and paperwork. In Germany, for example, there's an effort to classify Agrivoltaics systems as a "special area: agrivoltaics" in zoning plans, instead of a commercial area (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]). This helps to avoid significant efforts to justify the project. See Box 5.2.

Consideration should be had to the protection of highly productive farmland, high nature value, and permanent crops. Criteria for suitability need to be determined when identifying and mapping suitable land available for new PV systems. In particular, with nearly 45% of rural land dedicated to agriculture, poorly planned deployment of ground-mounted PV systems could negatively affect biodiversity, land-use and cover, soil quality, water resources, and public health (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]). Excluding protected areas, forests, and water bodies from solar development can help maintain environmental integrity, while buffer zones around roads, buildings, and conservation areas can mitigate potential land-use conflicts (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]).11

Careful site selection is therefore essential to balancing renewable energy generation with agricultural preservation. Prioritisation may be given for land that is at risk of abandonment, highly eroded, or of low agricultural productivity for Agrivoltaics deployment, minimising conflicts with prime farmland (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]). Furthermore, policymakers should prioritise deployment in areas with existing grid infrastructure to reduce connection costs and logistical challenges (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]) (Czyżak, 2024[3]).

Additionally, using integrated spatial planning and zoning systems that can help streamline the process of identifying suitable locations can support deployment. Detailed mapping tools with significant data collection, that assess solar potential, land cover, and topography can be critical to refine site selection (Öko-Institut e.V, 2024[16]).

To optimise land-use and streamline project approvals, Agrivoltaics could be integrated into spatial planning frameworks at the national and regional levels. Integrating Agrivoltaics into national and regional planning policies can provide clearer guidelines for developers and local authorities, reducing uncertainty and improving administrative delays. This can be even more important as zoning precedents for Agrivoltaics can be limited, so that developers face increased uncertainty, and might require costly and lengthy feasibility studies and agronomic reports. One approach is in Czechia, following new legislation in 2024, where it is now possible to permit an Agrivoltaics system as a construction for agriculture that can be placed on agricultural land without changing the spatial plan (Czyżak, 2024[3]).

Clear and consistent definitions and integrated spatial planning are even more important in small rural municipalities that are often resource constrained (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]). Nearly by definition agricultural land is in many instances rural areas - many of which are small municipalities where local authorities have limited financial and human resources available to review projects. A well-defined framework with clear role definitions and streamlined administrative processes would enable them to more efficiently assess and approve projects, while an integrated zoning system would help identify suitable sites, minimising conflicts with high-value agricultural land and sensitive ecosystems.

Box 5.2. Case Study example on the spatial planning process in Germany

The planning association Regionalverband Bodensee-Oberschwaben (RVBO) is responsible for the districts of Bodensee, Ravensburg and Sigmaringen in Germany and its spatial planning process begins with the identification of search areas for wind energy and open-space PV, excluding high-quality agricultural lands, nature conservation zones, and species protection areas to avoid conflicts. This initial phase includes a broader range of land than will ultimately be designated, allowing for further refinement.

After identifying the search areas, exclusion criteria such as retention zones, landscape preservation, and monument protection are applied. Polluted areas like parking lots are considered for renewable energy use to maximize land efficiency. This step narrows down the search areas to the most suitable sites for wind and PV development.

The potential areas are then evaluated individually, with input from stakeholders like municipal authorities and nature conservation organisations. A strategic environmental assessment is conducted for each site. Public participation plays a key role throughout this process, with citizen dialogue events held to present search areas and gather feedback, ensuring transparency and community engagement.

Source : (Öko-Institut e.V, 2024[16])

Permitting

(To undertake a self-assessment on permitting, see questionnaire in section 5.1.6 as well as Spatial Planning and Permitting chapter).

Agrivoltaics systems can face longer and more complex permitting procedures than traditional PV systems. Whilst permitting can already be complex to navigate and take a long time even for ground-mounted PV systems, in some countries Agrivoltaics are treated differently and can be even more difficult to secure permits (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). Due to the fact that these are new innovative solutions with which authorities are not very familiar with, in some countries developers face increased information requirements and processes (SolarPower Europe, 2024[15]).

There are a number of additional hurdles for Agrivoltaics obtaining permits. The lack of clear definition of Agrivoltaics as seen in the previous sections is one reason. Another is that since they support both electricity and crop production, Agrivoltaics projects typically intersect multiple regulatory domains, such as energy, environment, agriculture, and local planning authorities (Europe, 2023[6]), depending on the country (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]). Additionally, the complexity amplifies when no single agency has clear authority over dual-use schemes. This makes it difficult for farmers and developers to navigate the approval process and increases the costs and timelines associated with projects.

In jurisdictions where an Agrivoltaics developer must gain approval from many regulatory bodies, different criteria may be applied. This may lead to repeated reviews and possibly conflicting recommendations. For instance, a rural municipality might have a rule restricting new structures on farmland over a certain height, while a national incentive program might require a specific panel elevation to qualify as Agrivoltaics.

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are an important component and need to be well targeted. An individual EIA may be required, especially if not already done in spatial planning step. EIAs provide a structured framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of Agrivoltaics systems, which allows decision-makers to make well-informed choices about project design and implementation and prevent environmental harm (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau, 2023[1]) (Europe, 2023[6]). Large Agrivoltaics projects often trigger these requirements, especially when spanning multiple hectares or located near protected areas.

Unnecessarily complex and time-consuming EIAs can also increase costs and discourage potential investors and farmers (SolarPower Europe, 2024[15]). A particular challenge arises when regulators unfamiliar with Agrivoltaics apply standard solar farm criteria without considering the benefits of Agrivoltaics, such as continued agricultural use and potential biodiversity gains. By streamlining processes, providing clear guidelines, and focusing on both minimising harm and maximising benefits, EIAs can become a more effective tool for facilitating, rather than hindering, the development of Agrivoltaics.

Overall, navigating the complex landscape of permitting and zoning is critical for the successful deployment of Agrivoltaics projects. Clear definitions, harmonised regulations, and streamlined processes are needed to overcome the current hurdles, ensure that Agrivoltaics fulfil their dual purpose effectively, and avoid unintended negative consequences such as loss of agricultural status.

Grid connection

(To undertake a self-assessment on grid connection, see questionnaire in section 5.1.6)

Grid connection is crucial for the financial viability of Agrivoltaics projects, as reliable and affordable access to the electrical grid is needed to sell generated electricity. However, many farms are located in remote areas with inadequate grid infrastructure (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]). Further, some of this infrastructure is aging and this also causes reliability issues, such as voltage fluctuations, requiring costly solutions like advanced inverters or energy storage, or generally grid investment.

In most European countries, grid permitting authorities follow a “first come, first served” approach when awarding grid access. As a result, even speculative or uncertain renewable energy projects need to be assessed upon request. This has been considered to be by some stakeholders (developers) as a relevant contributing factor to excessive queues and backlogs. This system is stated to delay the connection of more advanced and viable projects while significantly increasing administrative burden for SOs (Wind Europe, 2024[17]). Some countries are exploring or implementing alternative methods, including filtering and prioritisation criteria, cost-effectiveness considerations, and conditional connections (Wind Europe, 2024[17]).

Grid connection procedures often follow those for standard PV systems, which does not account for the unique characteristics, challenges and potential of Agrivoltaics. For whichever system is chosen12, without due consideration for the characteristics of Agrisolar projects, these may be deprioritised in connection queues, facing competition from large-scale solar projects that may offer lower connection costs but do not have benefits such as reduction of land-use conflicts (see Section 5.1.3). Further, Agrivoltaics systems often use east-west panel orientations to balance agricultural needs, creating a flatter electricity generation profile that eases grid balancing (Czyżak, 2024[3]). Should grid connection assessments focusing only peak output metrics, this different profile that can have a beneficial effect on the grid will not be taken into account.

5.1.6. Self-diagnostic questionnaire

Instructions for Use

The self-diagnostic questionnaire is designed as a practical tool for policymakers to assess the regulatory and administrative conditions affecting renewable energy deployment. Each question or set of questions targets a specific barrier identified – such as permitting delays, grid connection, and asks whether a legal or regulatory obligation exists to address it. Responses are scored on a simple 0–1 scale, with 0 representing best practice (clear legal obligation enabling efficient deployment) and 1 representing the most burdensome conditions (no enabling framework). This structure allows policymakers to systematically identify gaps, benchmark performance, and prioritise reforms based on areas where national, regional or local rules fall short of good practice.

The questionnaire is divided between questions relevant to national and sub-national authorities. In jurisdictions where energy, environmental, or planning powers are decentralised, certain national-level questions should be completed by the relevant regional or devolved authority. Sub-national questions are further distinguished between regional and local levels, depending on how permitting and infrastructure responsibilities are distributed within the Member State. Policymakers at all levels should consult internal legal frameworks to determine which authority is competent to answer each question and ensure coordination where competencies overlap.

To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of barriers to deployment in your jurisdiction for this market segment or technology, to the results from the current questionnaire, users should also use the Spatial Planning and Permitting chapter and complete the relevant questionnaires, taking into account the analysis contained in the current chapter. Cross-referencing these sections will provide a complete picture of the regulatory environment and help identify priority areas for reform.

Scoring

The questions in this section are meant to enable two types of scores:

A. A score specific to a barrier within a market segment (technology): a market segment/barrier-specific score. An example is a score for permitting for PHS; and

B. A score specific to a market segment, hence including all barriers for that specific market segment: a market segment‑specific score. An example is utility-scale solar PV. A market segment/barrier-specific score forms part of the technology-specific score.

A. Market segment/barrier-specific score

This score determines the importance of a barrier for this technology. The score can be determined through the following steps:

I. Select a barrier within a market segment for analysis

II. Score each relevant question for that aspect of the analysis (at the relevant level of government). For this scoring, one designates a score between 0 and 1.

III. Please note, for a scoring of the barrier Spatial planning and permitting, one needs to score the questions in this section (excluding for this market segment the questions for “permitting for small installations”), and for grid connection and flexibility, one needs to score the questions in this section.

IV. Add up the scores for each question to obtain the Market segment/barrier total score: Market segment/barrier total score = Sum(all individual questions for that barrier)

V. Scale the Market segment/barrier total score to arrive at a (weighted) Market segment/barrier score, namely a score between 0 and 6 (see Annex C):

Market segment/barrier score =

(Market segment/barrier total score) x $\frac{6}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{q}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}}$

B. Market segment-specific score

The next step is to combine the (Weighted) Market segment/barrier scores to arrive at a Market segment-specific score. The score can be determined by adding up the Market segment/barrier scores and divide them by the number of barriers:

Market segment-specific score = $\frac{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{B}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{b}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}}$

Questions

 

Questions	Scoring of answers
Legal Framework, (see section Lack of legal framework)
National level or regional levels (depending on jurisdiction)
Does the legal framework provide a clear and comprehensive definition of Agrivoltaics, including eligibility criteria, clear distinction from conventional PV, and explicit rules on what does not qualify as Agrivoltaics (e.g., if agricultural production ceases to be the primary activity on the land)?	Yes, there is a clear, comprehensive legal definition of Agrivoltaics, with eligibility criteria, distinction from conventional PV, and explicit exclusion rules.	0
	Some legal recognition or partial definition exists, but there are no eligibility criteria, exclusion rules are not present or clear, or the distinction from conventional PV is not made.	.5
	No clear legal definition or exclusion criteria exist; legal status is ambiguous, and standards are not set out.	1
Does legislation recognise dual land-use for agriculture and energy generation, so that installing Agrivoltaics on farmland does not require a zoning plan change or lead to reclassification of land as non-agricultural?	Yes, dual use is explicitly recognised and Agrivoltaics installations on farmland do not require a change of land classification or zoning plan.	0
	Some dual use provisions exist or there is partial recognition, but zoning or land reclassification is sometimes still needed.	0.5
	No, installing Agrivoltaics typically requires zoning plan changes or results in non-agricultural land classification.	1
Is there a legal provision ensuring that the installation of Agrivoltaic systems does not alter the tax classification of farmland (e.g. inheritance, property, or income taxes)?	Yes, tax treatment remains consistent with agricultural use despite PV installation.	0
	Some provisions exist, but farmers may still face reclassification risks or inconsistent tax treatment.	0.5
	No legal provision: installation of PV may trigger a shift to commercial or industrial tax categories.	1
Are there clear legal or regulatory rules in place ensuring that Agrivoltaics projects on agricultural land do not risk loss of eligibility for CAP payments (direct subsidies) due to reclassification, provided agricultural production continues as the primary activity?	Yes, legal rules ensure that Agrivoltaics projects retain CAP eligibility if agricultural activity continues as primary use.	0
	Limited eligibility or eligibility is unclear	0.5
	No eligibility, or no legal provision or guidance for eligibility	1
Spatial Planning (See Section Spatial planning )
National or Regional Levels
Does the spatial planning framework at national, regional, and local levels provide for integrated, multi-level governance with clear role definitions, and regularly updated zoning rules that can accommodate new technologies such as Agrivoltaics?	Yes, clear multi-level governance, updated zoning rules, and integrated frameworks are in place, with clear roles defined for all levels and technologies like Agrivoltaics accommodated.	0
	Some integration or updates exist, but coordination, role clarity, or adaptation to new technologies is incomplete or inconsistent.	.5
	No integrated governance or updates; spatial planning is rigid or outdated, with no clear roles or adaptation for Agrivoltaics.	1
Has mapping of suitable land for Agrivoltaics—based on criteria such as low productivity, risk of abandonment, or proximity to grid infrastructure, and excluding protected or high-value farmland—been conducted at the national or regional level?	Yes, mapping has been comprehensively conducted at the national or regional level, using clear and robust criteria for suitability and exclusions.	0
	Some mapping exists, but it is partial, lacks certain criteria, or is not consistent across levels.	.5
	No mapping of suitable land for Agrivoltaics has been conducted at the national or regional level, or the mapping is inadequate.	1
Have planning rules been updated, or clear guidelines issued, that allow regional and local authorities to identify suitable sites for Agrivoltaics—specifically including prioritisation criteria such as land at risk of abandonment, high erosion, or low agricultural productivity?	Yes, planning rules or guidelines are fully updated, enabling authorities to identify suitable sites for Agrivoltaics with explicit prioritisation of abandoned, eroded, or low-productivity land.	0
	Some updated rules or guidelines exist, but prioritisation criteria are incomplete or not systematically applied.	0.5
	No rules or guidelines exist	1
Sub-National levels (Regional and Local Levels)
Do the current local zoning plans explicitly identify or designate dual-use (agriculture and energy) areas for Agrivoltaics projects?	Dual-use areas are identified or designated in the local zoning plans.	0
	The regulations are flexible enough to accommodate dual/land-use, but they are not identified explicitly or designated.	0.5
	No provision for dual use; land must be reclassified.	1
Has the jurisdiction undertaken integrated spatial planning and zoning systems using detailed mapping tools that assess solar potential, land cover, and topography to help identify suitable sites for Agrivoltaics?	Yes, comprehensive mapping tools were used to assess all three elements – solar potential, land cover, and topography – and are integrated into spatial planning processes.	0
	Mapping tools were used but only assessed one or two of these elements or are not integrated into spatial planning frameworks.	0.5
	No integrated planning system or mapping tools have been used to support site selection.	1
Does the locality have guidance and templates for reviewing and zoning Agrivoltaics projects provided by the region or national authorities?	Yes, the locality has available to it clear guidance and standardised templates for reviewing and zoning Agrivoltaics projects, provided by regional or national authorities.	0
	Some guidance or templates exist, but they are incomplete, outdated, or not consistently applied.	0.5
	No guidance or templates are provided by regional or national authorities; localities must develop their own processes.	1
Permitting and Environmental Impact Assessments (See Section Permitting)
National or Regional Levels
Is there a legal mechanism or designated authority to coordinate permitting across energy, agriculture, environmental, and planning bodies for Agrivoltaics?	Yes, there is a one stop shop procedure	0
	Developer must go through different regulatory bodies, but criteria to be applied are harmonised	0.5
	No, there is no standardized permitting procedure	1
Are permitting authorities provided with clear legal or procedural guidance on how to assess Agrivoltaics projects, avoiding unnecessary information demands?	Clear and comprehensive national or regional guidance exists, including permitting checklists that differentiate Agrivoltaics from standard ground-mounted PV and standardising documentation required, and examples to guide interpretation	0
	Some guidance exists, but does not have all of the following: checklists or standardised documentation, or examples	0.5
	No legal procedures or guidelines exist	1
Should jurisdiction fall under national or regional competences (due to threshold rules, for example), are Agrivoltaics projects subject to additional procedural documentation and studies in the permitting processes?	No, Agrivoltaics projects are not subject to additional documentation requirements, and requirements are clear and proportionate at all levels.	0
	Additional documentation may be required, but these need to be well justified and proportionate.	0.5
	Agrivoltaics face clearly more complex or unclear permitting than traditional PV.	1
Should jurisdiction fall under national or regional competences (due to threshold rules, for example), are environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for Agrivoltaics projects targeted and proportionate—taking into account both the unique dual-use nature and the specific site context—rather than applying standard solar farm criteria?	Yes, EIAs are targeted and proportionate, reflecting Agrivoltaics’ dual-use and site-specific context.	0
	Some adaptation of EIA procedures occurs, but do not fully reflect the dual-use nature and potential beneficial impacts for certain crops or husbandry.	.5
	No, EIAs for Agrivoltaics are based on standard solar farm criteria, not considering dual-use or site-specific benefits.	1
Local Level
Is there a clear and harmonised permitting process for Agrivoltaics, with requirements and procedures that are as clear and streamlined as those for traditional PV systems (even if specificities of agrivoltaics may be considered)?	Yes, a clear, harmonised, and streamlined permitting process exists for Agrivoltaics, comparable to traditional PV, even if specificities of Agrivoltaics are recognised in the criteria.
	Some guidance or streamlining exists, but rules are distinct, or criteria do not recognise specificities.
	No; Agrivoltaics face longer, more complex, or inconsistent permitting procedures than traditional PV systems.
Do the permitting rules in place ensure that the specific characteristics and potential benefits of Agrivoltaic projects—such as maintaining agricultural production, enhancing biodiversity, improving microclimate resilience, and supporting rural development—are given significant weight in the permitting decision-making process?	Yes, the permitting framework explicitly requires decision-makers to consider the unique benefits of Agrivoltaics, and these criteria are given significant weight in approvals.	0
	The permitting framework allows the benefits to be considered, but only some beneficial criteria are considered, or they are not systematically or explicitly weighted in permitting process.	0.5
	No, the permitting process does not account for the specific benefits of Agrivoltaics; standard PV or land-use criteria are applied.	1
Does the legal framework provide a clear exemption or simplified environmental impact assessment (EIA) pathway for small-scale or low-impact Agrivoltaics projects, particularly when not located in or near protected areas?	Yes, the framework includes specific exemptions or simplified procedures for such projects.	0
	Some provisions exist, but they apply only to one or two factors (e.g. size but not location), or the rule is unclear.	0.5
	No legal exemptions or simplified EIA procedures are available, regardless of scale or location.	1
Should jurisdiction fall under local competences (due to threshold rules, for example), are environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for Agrivoltaics projects targeted and proportionate—taking into account both the unique dual-use nature and the specific site context—rather than applying standard solar farm criteria?	Yes, EIAs are targeted and proportionate, reflecting Agrivoltaics’ dual-use and site-specific context.	0
	Some adaptation of EIA procedures occurs, but do not fully reflect the dual-use nature and potential beneficial impacts for certain crops or husbandry.	.5
	No, EIAs for Agrivoltaics are based on standard solar farm criteria, not considering dual-use or site-specific benefits.	1
Does the legal or administrative framework provide evaluation templates or guidance that encourage a balanced environmental impact assessment (EIA) for Agrivoltaics projects, considering both potential negative impacts and positive co-benefits (e.g. microclimate regulation, pollinator support)?	Yes, detailed guidance or templates exist that require or encourage assessment of both environmental risks and potential ecological or agricultural benefits.	0
	Guidance exists but only partially addresses co-benefits or leaves their consideration optional or unclear.	0.5
	No guidance or templates exist; EIAs are focused solely on potential negative environmental impacts.	1
Grid connection (See Section Grid connection)
Are grid connection procedures and technical requirements adapted to reflect the unique generation profile and dual-use nature of Agrivoltaics (e.g. east-west orientation, land-use co-benefits)?	Yes, grid connection standards and evaluation criteria specifically reflect Agrivoltaics characteristics.	0
	Partial recognition exists, but Agrivoltaics projects are mostly assessed under generic PV rules.	0.5
	No adaptation: connection is based solely on conventional PV parameters.	1
Do grid access rules include filtering, prioritisation, or conditional connection criteria that recognise project maturity, land-use efficiency, or system value beyond “first come, first served”?	Yes, legal or regulatory mechanisms allow prioritisation based on project readiness, co-benefits, or grid efficiency.	0
	Some limited filtering mechanisms exist but not based on structured criteria.	0.5
	No prioritisation or filtering; grid access is solely “first come, first served.”	1
Are grid connection assessments required or encouraged to consider system profiles that reduce peak loads or improve grid stability (e.g. east-west Agrivoltaics layouts)?	Yes, assessments include generation profiles and grid-balancing characteristics.	0
	Technically possible but not required.	0.5
	Only peak output or installed capacity is considered in connection assessments.	1
Are there guidelines for adapting grid connection criteria to Agrivoltaics’ unique generation profiles?	Yes	0
	Somewhat unclear	0.5
	No	1

5.2. Other innovative solutions

(To undertake a self-assessment on innovative solutions, see questionnaire in section 5.2.3)

5.2.1. Floating solar

Floating PV solar (FPV) can be an important part of the solution for the increasing competition for land between electricity production and agricultural and industrial activities (IEA, 2024[18]). FPV solutions allow the surface of water to be used for solar generation by installing solar panels on a floating system or structure in a body of water, such as lakes, with the dual purpose of generating energy and conserving water (SolarPower Europe, 2023[19]). FPV can be deployed in areas unsuitable for other land-uses, such as former quarry or mining sites now filled with groundwater, which may minimise potential environmental impact. It may provide for higher energy yields due to water functioning as a natural coolant, preventing panels from overheating (Kjeldstad et al., 2021[20]).13 FPV also offers synergies when co-located with hydropower reservoirs. In such settings, combining solar and hydro generation can simplify grid connection and improve system management. For example, solar generation during the day allows water to be conserved for hydropower use at night or during dry seasons, supporting seasonal balancing. 14 Depending on the configuration and responsiveness of the turbines, hydro facilities can also mitigate short-term fluctuations in solar output, effectively acting as a large-scale energy buffer (IEA, 2024[18]).

In general terms, the layout of a FPV system is comparable to that of a land-based PV solar system. As can be seen in Figure 5.2, these are similar to ground-mounted PV with the distinction that the PV arrays, and frequently the inverters, are mounted on a floating platform (World Bank Group, ESMAP, SERIS, 2018[21]). While FPV may currently be considered a niche area in Europe, European industry is expected to dedicate significantly more resources to this technology in the future (InterSolar Europe, 2022[22]).

Figure 5.2. Representation of a typical large-scale floating PV system with its key components

Source: (World Bank Group, ESMAP, SERIS, 2018, p. 2[21])).

FPV has the potential to make a significant contribution to the EU's 2030 targets. This is particularly relevant in the Mediterranean region, where the higher temperatures and sun exposure make it a favourable location for such technology (Baptista, Vargas and Ferreira, n.d.[23]).

The capacity of FPV installed in Europe was estimated at approximately 451 MW in 2022 (SolarPower Europe, 2023, p. 16[19]), and expected to increase rapidly:

• The Netherlands, which represents 61% of the European installed capacity (280 MW) has a further capacity in the pipeline of 2 MW.

• A Portuguese report shows significant promise for floating PV (FPV) solar development in the country. Research from the University of Évora in 2023 indicated that, even after applying an 85% reduction to the total water surface available at national level, and with the selection criteria including some technical and environmental issues, the potential of FPV systems can reach a minimum estimated national capacity of 10.8 GW.

• A European-wide study looks at the use of existing hydropower reservoirs in the EU-27 for FPV and estimates floating solar PV capacity that can be installed and provides an estimation of the electricity output and installed capacity, depending on an assumed coverage ratio (Kakoulaki et al., 2023[24]). Covering 10% of the reservoir surface, a realistic estimate, would yield an installed FPV capacity of 157 GW.

• Another study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) has calculated that the artificial lakes at former brown coal mines in Germany alone open up a technical potential of 44 GW (SolarPower Europe, 2023[19]).

However, despite recent promising developments and potential, there are still several challenges, including regulatory ones, that need to be addressed to release the full potential of the technology.

Regulatory barriers

Regulatory frameworks for FPV remain underdeveloped and fragmented. In many jurisdictions, FPV projects are subject to a combination of construction, water, and environmental regulations that lack clear definitions tailored to this technology. FPV installations often require building permits, yet they are not always explicitly recognised in construction codes (SolarPower Europe, 2023[19]). Similarly, water use laws typically treat FPV as a form of "water use," triggering additional permitting requirements. A waterbody may already be dedicated to other activities (e.g. recreational activities or fishing) and current frameworks may not allow dual use that includes FPV. Authorities could promote the multipurpose use of water and simplifying permitting processes (SolarPower Europe, 2024[25]). Environmental regulations, including impact assessments and nature protection laws, apply to FPV but are not always adapted to its specific risk profile – particularly when projects are proposed in or near protected areas (Trinomics, 2024[26]). Ownership of water bodies – especially public or shared reservoirs – adds another layer of complexity, particularly where use and access rights are unclear. Some Member States have already regulated FPV (see Box 5.3).

Box 5.3. Floating PV on Water Bodies: Rules and Permitting Criteria in Practice

In Germany the Water Balance Act establishes specific regulations regarding the coverage of water surfaces. It sets out a maximum permissible coverage is set at 15% of the water surface, and a minimum distance of 40 metres is mandated between the plant and the shoreline.

Italy has taken targeted steps to enable faster deployment of floating PV solar (FPV) through simplified permitting regimes in quarries, mines, and industrial zones as “suitable areas” for solar development, exempting qualifying projects from full environmental impact assessments. This includes water-filled quarries, where floating PV systems may be deployed. The Energy Decree Law (as revised) extended fast-track authorisation (Procedura Abilitativa Semplificata – PAS) to PV installations up to 20 MW in restored quarries, with EIA thresholds being 25 MW for state EIA and 12 MW for Regional EIA screening. These changes have significantly shortened approval timelines – reducing permitting procedures from years to months – and have facilitated the development of FPV in previously underutilised sites.

Spain has approved in 2024 a Royal Decree that regulates the requirements for the granting of permits for the installation of FPV plants in reservoirs located in the public water domain, which may occupy between 5% and 15% of the total useful surface area of these reservoirs.

Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/whg_2009/__36.html; Real Decreto 662/2024, de 9 de julio; Italy - Energy Decree Law No. 11, 2024

These regulatory gaps result in several practical barriers that slow or deter FPV deployment. The absence of clear legal definitions across relevant legislation often leads to inconsistent permitting procedures and delays, particularly in federal or decentralised governance systems where responsibilities are split across levels. Developers must frequently navigate multiple, uncoordinated processes for construction, water use, and environmental permitting – each with unclear timelines and criteria. Moreover, unresolved ownership or land-use rights over water surfaces can trigger legal disputes. A lack of administrative experience and technical understanding of FPV among permitting authorities contributes to procedural uncertainty and inconsistent decisions. Without targeted regulatory clarification and streamlining, FPV risks being underdeveloped despite its strong potential for low-conflict, space-efficient renewable energy deployment.

5.2.2. Infrastructure-integrated PV (IIPV)

Integrating PV solar into transport and water infrastructure offers promising opportunities but faces regulatory complexity. Linear infrastructure such as roads, railways, canals, and bridges can host a wide range of PV applications – elevated systems over roads or bike paths, canal-covering canopies that reduce evaporation, or vertical panels mounted on noise barriers and railway assets (IEA, 2024[18]). These configurations can minimise land-use conflicts, improve public acceptance, and leverage already developed land often considered to have lower environmental sensitivity. This is because land adjacent to major transport infrastructure is often already developed and generally considered to have lower environmental sensitivity, although site-specific evaluations remain essential. In some EU Member States, safety-based prohibitions remain in place, restricting the installation of renewable energy systems near roads or railways. However, many of these rules have not been updated to reflect recent technological advancements (European Commission, 2024[27]).

Declining costs and technological advances have made IIPV increasingly attractive. Falling PV costs and growing energy needs – particularly for e-mobility infrastructure – have increased interest in IIPV. A recent study estimates that vertical PV along EU transport corridors could provide up to 403 GW of capacity, more than half of the EU’s 2030 solar target (Kakoulaki et al., 2024[28]). In the rail sector, such systems could supply up to 250% of its current electricity demand (IEA, 2024[18]).

Legal uncertainty and fragmented responsibilities hinder deployment. Despite strong potential, IIPV projects are frequently delayed due to legal ambiguity. Sectoral laws governing transport infrastructure typically define what constitutes “infrastructure” and what types of modifications are allowed. In many Member States, these laws do not explicitly recognise the integration of energy systems – leaving unclear whether PV installations are permissible or require separate approval. This is compounded by complex governance structures: while national authorities may regulate major roads or railways, land-use decisions – including on land adjacent to such infrastructure – often fall under regional or municipal authority. For example, in Belgium, decisions regarding land next to transport corridors fall under regional jurisdiction (Trinomics, 2024). This creates uncertainty over competence, procedural steps, and applicable legal regimes – especially when IIPV is retrofitted onto existing infrastructure. For practical examples on how to reduce legal uncertainty, see Box 5.4.

Different permitting practices across jurisdictions increase legal risk and cost. Permitting procedures for IIPV vary widely across Member States – and even within countries – due to fragmented planning, construction, and zoning frameworks. In many jurisdictions, there are no specific provisions for IIPV, meaning that project approvals are assessed case by case. Whether a PV installation is integrated into infrastructure from the outset or added later may determine whether it triggers a full permitting process or a simpler amendment. For example, a PV array on a noise barrier may be treated as “roof-mounted” in one region, but as “ground-mounted” or “new construction” in another (Trinomics, 2024[26]). Such inconsistencies, combined with limited familiarity among local permitting authorities, increase developer risk, delay project timelines, and drive-up transaction costs (compliance and uncertainty).

Box 5.4. Reducing Legal Uncertainty and Supporting Deployment Through Clarity and Guidance

In Austria, a recent amendment to the Federal Roads Act formally introduced IIPV and defined its regulatory treatment. The amendment clarifies that PV systems installed near roads are considered part of the road infrastructure, thereby falling under the scope of the Federal Roads Act. This legal clarity provides a more predictable permitting pathway and helps streamline procedures for IIPV deployment along motorways and federal roads.

In France, urban planning regulations previously enforced a strict 100-metre exclusion zone along motorways and a 75-metre setback along other primary roads. Recent legislative reforms under the 2023 law aimed at accelerating renewable energy deployment introduced a targeted exemption to these buffer requirements, facilitating PV solar projects near transport infrastructure.

Germany revised its regulatory approach by removing the prohibition on building within 40 metres of motorways and instead established a preferential zone extending 200 metres from motorways, explicitly prioritising PV solar development in these transport corridors. These regulatory adjustments enhance opportunities for infrastructure-integrated PV (IIPV) solutions and illustrate a strategic shift toward optimising land-use near existing transport routes.

In the Netherlands, practical guidance complements legal frameworks to facilitate project development. ProRail, the publicly owned railway infrastructure operator, has issued technical handbooks that provide clear instructions for installing PV systems along railway lines and noise barriers. These include the Technische Voorschriften (2022), which sets out legal requirements, safety constraints, and documentation procedures, and the Handboek Zonnepanelen Spoor, which offers design principles and spatial planning frameworks for solar integration near rail infrastructure, and outlines criteria to assess site suitability for solar deployment.

Source: (Trinomics, 2024[26]), (ApER legislation in France), (European Commission, 2024[27])

5.2.3. Self-Diagnostic Questionnaire

Instructions for use

The self-diagnostic questionnaire is designed as a practical tool for policymakers to assess the regulatory and administrative conditions affecting renewable energy deployment. Each question or set of questions targets a specific barrier identified – such as permitting delays, grid connection, and asks whether a legal or regulatory obligation exists to address it. Responses are scored on a simple 0–1 scale, with 0 representing best practice (clear legal obligation enabling efficient deployment) and 1 representing the most burdensome conditions (no enabling framework). This structure allows policymakers to systematically identify gaps, benchmark performance, and prioritise reforms based on areas where national, regional or local rules fall short of good practice.

The questionnaire is divided between questions relevant to national and sub-national authorities. In jurisdictions where energy, environmental, or planning powers are decentralised, certain national-level questions should be completed by the relevant regional or devolved authority. Sub-national questions are further distinguished between regional and local levels, depending on how permitting and infrastructure responsibilities are distributed within the Member State. Policymakers at all levels should consult internal legal frameworks to determine which authority is competent to answer each question and ensure coordination where competencies overlap.

To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of barriers to deployment in your jurisdiction for this market segment or technology, to the results from the current questionnaire, users should also use the Spatial Planning and Permitting chapter and complete the relevant questionnaires, taking into account the analysis contained in the current chapter. Cross-referencing these sections will provide a complete picture of the regulatory environment and help identify priority areas for reform.

Scoring

The questions in this section are meant to enable two types of scores:

A. A score specific to a barrier within a market segment (technology): a market segment/barrier-specific score. An example is a score for permitting for PHS; and

B. A score specific to a market segment, hence including all barriers for that specific market segment: a market segment‑specific score. An example is utility-scale solar PV. A market segment/barrier-specific score forms part of the technology-specific score.

A. Market segment/barrier-specific score

This score determines the importance of a barrier for this technology. The score can be determined through the following steps:

i. Select a barrier within a market segment for analysis

ii. Score each relevant question for that aspect of the analysis (at the relevant level of government). For this scoring, one designates a score between 0 and 1.

Please note, for a scoring of the barrier Spatial planning and permitting, one needs to score the questions in this section, and for grid connection and flexibility, one needs to score the questions in this section.

iii. Add up the scores for each question to obtain the Market segment/barrier total score: Market segment/barrier total score = Sum(all individual questions for that barrier)

iv. Scale the Market segment/barrier total score to arrive at a (weighted) Market segment/barrier score, namely a score between 0 and 6 (see Annex C):

Market segment/barrier score =

(Market segment/barrier total score) x $\frac{6}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{q}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}}$

B. Market segment-specific score

The next step is to combine the (Weighted) Market segment/barrier scores to arrive at a Market segment-specific score. The score can be determined by adding up the Market segment/barrier scores and divide them by the number of barriers:

Market segment-specific score = $\frac{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{B}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{ }}{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{ }\mathrm{b}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}}$

Questions

 

Questions	Scoring of answers
Legal Framework
National AND Sub-National levels
Do regulations acknowledge the dual use of water surfaces, allowing FPV	Yes, regulations explicitly allow for the installation of floating PV solar, and guidelines are clear	0
	Regulations are ambiguous about whether floating PV solar can be installed on water surfaces or guidelines on where they can be installed are unclear	0.5
	Regulations do explicitly not allow for the installation of floating PV solar	1
Are there specific legal or regulatory rules that clearly define the permitting or concession requirements for floating PV solar (FPV) installations, including what permits are needed and what documentation must be submitted?	Yes, there are specific and clear legal rules governing FPV permitting or concessions, including defined procedures, permit types, and documentation requirements.	0
	Some permitting provisions apply to FPV (e.g. under general water use or energy laws), but they are incomplete, inconsistent, or not tailored to FPV.	0.5
	No specific permitting rules exist for FPV; permitting pathways are unclear, creating legal uncertainty for both investors and authorities.	1
Are there legal or regulatory rules that explicitly recognise floating PV solar (FPV) within construction, water, and environmental permitting frameworks, including clear definitions and applicability under relevant codes?	Yes, FPV is explicitly recognised in construction, water, and environmental regulations, with clear definitions and tailored permitting requirements.	0
	FPV is partially recognised under one or more regulatory domains, but definitions are unclear, inconsistent, or not harmonised across relevant frameworks.	0.5
	No legal recognition or tailored permitting exists; FPV projects are assessed under general regulations without clarity, leading to legal uncertainty.	1
Are environmental regulations, including impact assessments and nature protection laws, adapted or flexible enough to take into account specific risk profile of floating PV solar (FPV) installations?	Yes, environmental regulations are clearly adapted to FPV, with tailored criteria or thresholds reflecting its specific environmental impact profile.	0
	Environmental rules apply to FPV, but they are based on general frameworks not designed for this technology, which may lead to partial or inconsistent application.	0.5
	No specific adaptation exists; FPV is subject to standard environmental rules regardless of its distinct characteristics, creating legal uncertainty.	1
Are there official guidelines, criteria, or templates that provide clarity on the documentation required and the analytical standards used by permitting authorities when evaluating floating PV solar (FPV) projects?	Yes, official guidelines or templates exist that clearly outline documentation requirements and evaluation criteria tailored to FPV permitting.	0
	Some guidance exists, but it is general, not specific to FPV, or inconsistently applied by permitting authorities.	0.5
	No official guidelines or templates are available; permitting procedures for FPV are unclear and documentation expectations are undefined.	1
Are there clear legal or regulatory rules that define infrastructure-integrated photovoltaics (IIPV) and specify how such systems are to be treated under sector-specific permitting frameworks (e.g. for roads, railways), including when added post-construction?	Yes, there are clear legal definitions and permitting rules for IIPV, ensuring consistent treatment across jurisdictions and distinguishing between integrated and retrofit installations.	0
	Some rules or precedents exist, but definitions are unclear or vary by jurisdiction, and permitting outcomes depend on case-by-case interpretation.	0.5
	No clear legal or regulatory framework exists for IIPV; permitting processes are uncertain, fragmented, or default to general infrastructure rules.	1
Are there legal or regulatory rules that exempt PV solar projects from standard setback requirements or explicitly designate preferential zones for PV development along transport infrastructure such as motorways and primary roads?	Yes, national rules either provide targeted exemptions from setback requirements or establish preferential zones near transport corridors to enable infrastructure-integrated PV (IIPV) deployment.	0
	Some exemptions or local practices exist, but no consistent national rule or designated preferential zones have been established.	0.5
	No exemptions or prioritisation exist; standard setback requirements apply fully to PV projects near transport infrastructure.	1
Are there clear legal or regulatory rules specifying which authorities must be consulted or from which authorisations must be obtained for infrastructure-integrated photovoltaics (IIPV), including how competences are divided between national, regional, and local levels?	Yes, the legal framework clearly identifies all relevant authorities and their competences, including distinctions between national, regional, and local responsibilities.	0
	Some information exists on permitting responsibilities but overlaps or ambiguities remain between administrative levels or sectors.	0.5
	No clear rules define which authorities are responsible; applicants face uncertainty over whom to consult or seek approval from.	1
Are there official guidelines, criteria, or templates that provide clarity on the documentation required and the analytical standards used by permitting authorities when evaluating infrastructure-integrated photovoltaics (IIPV) projects?	Yes, clear and publicly available guidelines or templates exist, outlining documentation requirements and evaluation criteria for IIPV permitting.	0
	Some informal or sector-specific guidance exists, but it is incomplete, inconsistently applied, or not tailored to IIPV.	0.5
	No guidelines or templates exist; permitting processes for IIPV are ad hoc, with unclear requirements and criteria.	1

References

[8] Asa’a, S. et al. (2024), “A multidisciplinary view on agrivoltaics: Future of energy and agriculture”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 200, p. 114515, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114515.

[23] Baptista, J., P. Vargas and J. Ferreira (n.d.), A techno-economic analysis of floating photovoltaic systems, for southern European countries, https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj19.214.

[3] Czyżak, P. (2024), Empowering farmers in Central Europe: the case for agri-PV.

[27] European Commission (2024), Commission Staff Working Document on Guidance to Member States on Good Practices to speed-up permit-granting procedures fore renewable energy and related infrastructure projects.

[1] European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Chatzipanagi, A., Taylor, N. and Jaeger-Waldau (2023), “Overview of the Potential and Challenges for Agri-Photovoltaics in the European Union”, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2760/208702.

[4] European Commission: Joint Research Centre, P. (2024), “Renewable energy production and potential in EU rural areas”, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024.

[6] Europe, S. (2023), SolarPower Europe: Agrisolar Best Practices Guidelines Version 2.0..

[9] Fraunhofer ISE (2024), “AGRIVOLTAICS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE AND THE ENERGY TRANSITION” October.

[12] Gaëtan Masson; (Becquerel Institute); Melodie de l’Epine (Becquerel Institute France); Izumi Kaizuka (RTS Corporation) (2024), Trends in Photovoltaic Applications, 2024.

[2] Gomez-Casanovas, N. et al. (2023), Knowns, uncertainties, and challenges in agrivoltaics to sustainably intensify energy and food production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101518.

[14] Gomez-Casanovas, N. et al. (2023), “Knowns, uncertainties, and challenges in agrivoltaics to sustainably intensify energy and food production”, Cell Reports Physical Science, Vol. 4/8, p. 101518, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101518.

[18] IEA (2024), Trends in Photovolitac Applications 2024, https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IEA-PVPS-Task-1-Trends-Report-2024.pdf.

[22] InterSolar Europe (2022), Trend paper for Intersolar Europe: Floating Photovoltaics, https://www.intersolar.de/media/doc/610b9db09bff1524540eccb2.

[24] Kakoulaki, G. et al. (2023), “Benefits of pairing floating solar photovoltaics with hydropower reservoirs in Europe”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 171, January 2023.

[28] Kakoulaki, G. et al. (2024), Communication on the potential of applied PV in the European Union: Rooftops, reservoirs, roads (R3), https://www.epj-pv.org/articles/epjpv/full_html/2024/01/pv230071/pv230071.html.

[20] Kjeldstad, T. et al. (2021), Cooling of floating photovoltaics and the importance of water temperature, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X21002085.

[29] Lee, J., D. Schoenherr and J. Starmans (2022), “The Economics of Legal Uncertainty”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4276837.

[11] Macknick, J. et al. (2022), “The 5 Cs of Agrivoltaic Success Factors in the United States: Lessons From the InSPIRE Research Study”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report: NREL/TP-6A20-83566 August.

[5] Observatoire du Système électrique (2024), Renouvelable 2024.

[16] Öko-Institut e.V (2024), Overview of Renewable Energy Spatial Planning and Designation of Acceleration Areas in Selected EU Member States.

[15] SolarPower Europe (2024), SolarPower Europe (2024): Agrisolar Handbook.

[25] SolarPower Europe (2024), SolarPower Europe’s Position paper: Recommendations on onshore Floating PV, https://api.solarpowereurope.org/uploads/Floating_PV_position_paper_bd193aa871.pdf?updated_at=2024-04-16T15:51:53.642Z.

[19] SolarPower Europe (2023), Floating PV. Best Practice Guidelines, https://www.solarpowereurope.org/insights/thematic-reports/floating-pv-best-practice-guidelines-version-1-2.

[10] Soto-Gómez, D. (2024), “Integration of Crops, Livestock, and Solar Panels: A Review of Agrivoltaic Systems”, Agronomy, Vol. 14/8, p. 1824, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081824.

[26] Trinomics (2024), Analysis of barriers for innovative forms of solar PV deployment and associated recommendations Final Report.

[7] Vezzoni, R. (2025), “Farming the sun: the political economy of agrivoltaics in the European Union”, Sustainability Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01601-7.

[13] Vollprecht, J. and M. Trommsdorff (2023), New Legal Framework of Agrivoltaics in Germany.

[17] Wind Europe (2024), Grid access challenges for wind farms in Europe.

[21] World Bank Group, ESMAP, SERIS (2018), Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Market, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/where-sun-meets-water.

Notes

← 1.  Latvia has the largest share (8.5 %) of suitable land available for new PV installations, followed by Romania (7.6 %), Estonia (6.2 %), Portugal (5 %), Lithuania (4.4 %), Hungary (3.9 %), Spain (3.2 %) and Bulgaria (2.6 %), which are all above the EU average. Together, these countries account for 61 % of the EU’s available suitable land. Most of this land (78 %) is in rural areas, while 18 % is in towns and suburbs and only 4 % in cities (see Annex 1 for more details). (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2024[4]).

← 2.  According to the Solar Power Europe report, some studies in Spain and Greece, have shown yield increases for crops grown in the corridors of PV modules: +40% for forage, +20% for thyme, +30% for aloe, and +60% for peppers in Spain; and +15% for oregano, +30% for eggplants, and +60% for peppers in Greece. Strawberries in Greece also showed an 18% increase in yield in the corridors, and a 14% increase under the modules, reaching 36% with LED backlighting.

← 3.  The Fraunhofer ISE 2024 report cites studies reporting that winter wheat, potatoes, celery, and grass/clover yield under Agri-PV in certain years as crops that may see lower yields, however for a region in Germany whilst this happened in 2017, crop yields improved in the drier year of 2018.

← 4.  See A multidisciplinary view on agrivoltaics: Future of energy and agriculture

← 5.  The need to optimise panel spacing, tilt, and height may often lead to complex engineering challenges. Standard farm equipment must operate freely under or around arrays, which can require customised layouts or specialised machinery (Fraunhofer ISE, 2024[9]), and advanced features like tracking systems or high-mounted panels may demand extra upkeep and technical expertise, ultimately raising operational costs and the need for skilled labour.

← 6.  See for example (Lee, Schoenherr and Starmans, 2022[29]).

← 7.  This finding results from a workshop with a wide set of diverse stakeholders “Agri-Photovoltaics - achieving its full potential in the EU Energy Transition” held in March 2022.

← 8.  In Germany regulations allow for agricultural subsidies to continue if the system does not reduce the usable land by more than 15%, this definition is based on the criteria outlined in the technical standard DIN SPEC 91434:2021 by the German institute of standardisation.

← 9.  An example is Spain, where there is no formal policy that defines or regulates dual land-use.

← 10.  Agrisolar often requires proximity to medium-voltage substations (≤5 km) to minimize infrastructure costs (Czyżak, 2024[3]).

← 11.  Areas that need to be very carefully considered and potentially be excluded from development, would include: (1) areas of high-nature-value farmlands; (2) permanent crops such as vineyards, orchards, olive groves, and rice fields; and (3) arable land, mixed cropping systems, and pasturelands.

← 12.  For example, prioritisation based primarily on cost-effectiveness for the grid operator might lead to prioritising projects that require minimal network reinforcement or upgrades and that have higher energy output per hectare. This may lead to prioritising large-scale solar or wind projects located near existing substations or transmission corridors, while Agrivoltaics projects – often located in rural or agricultural zones with weaker grid infrastructure – may face delays or higher connection costs.

← 13.  FPV could achieve energy yields that are up to 2% higher than land-based PV, despite lower tilts (Baptista, Vargas and Ferreira, n.d.[23]).

← 14.  However, the effectiveness of this phenomenon is contingent on factors such as location, the percentage of area covered and prevailing climatic conditions (https://institute.eib.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EIB-STAREBEI-Floating-Solar-Project-Torstein.pdf).